Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 21, 2014 6:00am-6:31am PST

6:00 am
project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the california red leg frog or the garter snake. based on that we interpreted the analysis of the bo and pmd does not result for the purpose of ceqa. the second point the appellant raised is that there is a fair argument related to expert opinion disagreement. the appellant mentioned they hired hydroelectrical expert and the project might increase the hydroelectrical and can reverse the water flow. however, that assertion is based on
6:01 am
assumption that the project would change the elevation which the appellant says the highest point of the connection channel. that's really not the case here. so, again the assertion is based on the miss characterization of the project. this project would not change the elevation. it's not going to change any hydrological connection of bodies of water. and also by saying this project would result in significant hydrological impact, the nature and extent to impact to species or water quality. so staff believes there is not substantial evidence supporting the art that there is. lastly someone mentioned the concerns about traffic. this project is again really minor in scope.
6:02 am
the zone type would be approximately between 2-10 individuals. given that, this project does not result in any traffic significant impact. if you have any further questions, i would like to address them. >> thank you for that additional information. commissioners? commissioner sugaya? >>commissioner hisashi sugaya: yeah, i would like to ask the staff, if an environmental report were to be the case, how much additional information would there be in that document versus was in the pmd at the moment? for example full environmental report would require a section on alternatives, so there would be a section in the alternatives that has to do with a no project alternative in which case you would analyze what happens if nothing takes place
6:03 am
and the project isn't implemented. i assume there will be another alternative that says something to the effect that might address what? i don't know. the size of the pond, you know, relocating the pathways, that kind of thing? there wouldn't be, i don't think and alternative that deals with the elimination of the golf course because that's not part of the project. am i correct? >> i would say, rick cooper, department staff. that's generally correct. when you do an environmental impact report you have alternatives that address the impact of the project and in that case, we are already providing evidence that there would not be a
6:04 am
significant and unvoidable impact. so the development of alternatives would kind of be an open question, i think. >> as far as the content of the rest of the eir with the addition of the language that you have provided, wouldn't the eir document itself pretty much be reflective of what we have already accomplished in this pmd? >> i believe that is correct. >> okay. lastly i guess staff mentioned that the eir even if there were any eir, the eir would not consider some of the thing that were presented to us in terms of potential sea level rise along the beaches along the coast? >> well, to the extent that those might affect the environmental outcomes, we would, but we've established already that this very limited proposed project would not
6:05 am
affect sea level rise. >> thank you. commissioner wu? >vice-president cindy wu: i want to thank staff for their very thorough report. there have been a lot of proposals here for looking at whether or not the golf course is appropriate or looking at other things brought up, but within the confines of this project as proposed, it seems to me the preliminary mitigated negative declaration is active. move to uphold. >> is there an opinion from the city attorney about what this motion should be. >> deputy city attorney. yes, you would make a motion to uphold and for the department to finalize the preliminary
6:06 am
mitigated. if this is what you want to do. >> second. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further i can call the motion. >> commissioner sugaya? >>commissioner hisashi sugaya: i'm not an expert on hydrology and biology, if you presented me with something that had to do with land use and historic preservation, i might have a different opinion. but it doesn't seem there has been a fair argument to over turn the pmd. >> commissioner borden? >>commissioner gwyneth borden: i would add a baseline to that. it would be to evaluating the project. evaluating the small project that we are talking about, not whether should the golf course should be existing. which is why it doesn't make sense. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore:
6:07 am
we need to realize it's not a single agency approval. there are other fwoedz -- bodies to look at this and a local level of performance. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second to uphold the mitigated negative declaration to approve the document. commissioner borden? aye, commissioner moore, aye, sugaya aye, wu, aye, fong? aye. that passes 5-0. >> the commission will take a short break and we'll be back >> welcome back to san francisco's planning commission regular meeting for the thursday january 16, 2014. i would like to remind members of the public that the commission
6:08 am
does not tolerate any disruption or outburst of any kind. please silence mobile devices. if want to speak, please state your name for the record. we left on item 12. item 12: 2013.1329c s. s. lai; 4155 575-90877 record. we left on iteit record. we left on item 12. sf 12123412 item 12: 2013.1329c s. project lai; 4155 575-90877the subject on to fern street. it contains 42 parking spaces on the building. the proposed establishment will be a used furniture retailer. with only
6:09 am
out of the 436 designated facilities. there is one location. the department finds the proposal desirable and recommends with conditions. there is notable number of vacancies within the immediate area. the proposed alteration will increase employment opportunities and eliminate the corridor. further more it's consistent with the area plan as well as other plan objectives. no additional comments have been submitted following the commission of the packet. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. hello, my name is david. i'm here on behalf of the
6:10 am
center. i will make this short. this is a furniture retail store to sell home and office furniture and it was already stated, this is only one of 5 in the country that actually do even though you may have heard of rental services. this location and zoning is perfect for this operation and activates sutter street frontage as you can see from the drawing up here. you may recognize from a building that has formula retail approved. i think that this space is has been under utilized and going to provide new job opportunities and create new activity in this area. it's approximately 6,000 square feet and we believe the department
6:11 am
has recommended. if you have any questions, i have representatives available to speak. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner borden? >>commissioner gwyneth borden: i'm going to move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> on that motion commissioners to approve with conditions, commissioner borden, wu, fong, aye. that passes unanimously 4-0. commissioners this places on items 13. item 13 a, b: c. lamorena; 4155 575-90855
6:12 am
commissioners there are two separate request for continuance. one from supervisor mar's office as well as from organized opposition. and i'm not certain as to whether or not the project sponsor has agreed to that continuance. i would recommend you take up the matter of continuance. >> is there a motion? >> we should hear from the project sponsor. >> thank you. >> this is just on the matter of continuance that's being proposed. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. jeremy shab, architect. in terms of the continuance, we feel it's an unfair burden on our project sponsor. we've been working with the department about a year on this project. we have received no resistance to the
6:13 am
project until monday. so we feel that it's unfair that we've been working all throughout the process, had our preapplication meeting and been working with adjacent neighbors and didn't know of any opposition until this week. >> commissioner borden? >>commissioner gwyneth borden: i think for us typically as a supervisor asks us to continue something we often consider that i respect the sponsor feels you have been working on this process and it often happens that people don't pay attention to what's happening next door until they see a notice. everyone acknowledges it. i don't know if there are any sort of other issues that could have come into play in terms of people not being aware. i kind of lean towards the continuance because we have
6:14 am
so much opposition and a supervisor asking for it but i would want to consult with a project sponsor and there is a need to go out and do some outreach. the goal isn't that everyone has to be satisfied, it's not the purpose but to let people have a dialogue and become educated and if they can come to some sort of a consensus, if not, agree to disagree. i'm not making a prejudice decision about changing the facts more of the facts that there seems to be maybe, you can benefit from a little bit of conversation. i actually am somewhat, i'm very supportive of the continuance for that reason. >> commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i want to express my support for continuance as well. there may be issues that were maybe not
6:15 am
addressed and because of the holidays, people don't come together in the time there was enough communication in the last few days which makes me believe that there is something a miss and i would encourage this commission supports a continuance. >> commissioner sugaya? >>commissioner hisashi sugaya: yes, is there a representative from supervisor mar's office? no. >> can i hear from the opposition? >> can you give me about three quick points on what the issues are from your standpoint? >> the issues are since the initial preapplication meeting, less than a year ago, the project has only been in the department 10 months and 2 weeks. since the initial meeting february 16th, a preapplication, there has been
6:16 am
no community outreach, no community meetings at all. it's an extraordinary project. i real game changer involves three variances, subdivisions of a lot. demolition, conditional use, affordable housing. the plan is to put a 4 story plus building in the current rear yard of the existing lot. so, the community was really caught by surprise by this. i have only been on the case for 6 days. the first thing i did was alaska for a continuance. there has been no discussion or vetting of this project. it's an extraordinary project. about 12,000 square feet of construction. >> okay. thank you. i can support a continuance, but it's kind of like, i don't know if
6:17 am
we can give any direction other than to say to get together to try to discuss what the issues might be. i think for me one of the issues is, the required rear yard requirement open space not being on the ground floor. i personally although where the commissioners may not feel this way, i don't have a problem with the height. i do have some concern to the amount of glazing that is compared to other buildings in the neighborhood, but other than that i don't have a lot of direction to give. >> commissioner wu? >vice-president cindy wu: move to continue to february 20th. >> second. >> the project sponsor, will that date work for you? >> yes. >> again, all we are asking you
6:18 am
to do is have a meeting with the neighbors to discuss things. no one is saying that you have to do anything in particular other than to open a dialogue to make sure people are aware of the project and that if there are concerns that you can address. >> could you repeat the date? >> february 20th. >> i do have a request. i think both sides will have about 40 people here. i don't know, next time it's 20 people going to be here. some people maybe cannot come next time. i'm sure next time is not going to be the same amount of people. >> that's fine. >> obviously we are taking note of the people here and they are welcome to submit something in writing and if they want to make comment to that project, they may do so as well at the very end. >> just to clarify under general public comment at the
6:19 am
end of the hearing you can actually submit comment. >> [inaudible]. >> we can hold on to these comment cards until the end, but as the city attorney pointed out, we have speaker cards and should open up for public comment on the continuance matter itself. >> okay. so that being the case. >> just requesting if anyone wants to submit a public comment on the matter of continuance itself, not only matter of the project. >> if there is any public comment on the matter of continuance, not what it looks like in size, if you are a supporter of continuing the item to february 20th?
6:20 am
>> i'm ben pullman. i want to say that i have gone through process before. what was stated was 10 months and 3 weeks. it's a long time. so i don't think it's a matter of notice, i don't think it's a matter of outreach. i think it's just a stalling tactic and i understand that. people that are doing this type of things, it's very costly and time consuming to be involved in this process. so, that's all i have to say. >> i understand, thank you. >> any additional public comment on the continuance? >> yes, gabriel architect. i want to mention the reason for we are not agree for
6:21 am
continuance, mr. williams client is miss wendy chang. we sent out for application on february 1st, to have the application meeting on february 16th. february 15th ms. wendy chang called and i talked to her. on february 16th, during the application meeting, miss judy lee came and represented randy chang. and we talked about one hour 1 hour one 1 hour at the site and i explained everything to her. and at the same time, she chose me to her son on the building next door. about 1 hour, the topic is going around the window next to us. so, she
6:22 am
request me to talk to my client to see if we can do something to preserve those windows. so, on september, we delivered a set of plan with modification to lower the building to create a setback way from the window deliver to her office. since she is represented wendy chang and her son. we sent to her office and follow up call to her. after that, she did not respond to me until last week. mr. williams say, he represents
6:23 am
ms. window wendy chang. he did not have enough time to prepare. this is before the application meeting. i don't think it's fair to us to continue the hearing. thank you. >> thank you, any other public comment on the continuance, not on the project, but the continuance? >> hello, my name is tony lee. the owner of 27 avenue. i was there with him. i want to speak in regards to continuance. first i think there has been a n a little bit of miss direction. the plans he provided to us were different from the city. from that we
6:24 am
were wondering what is going on. in addition when the preapplication meeting went out, they put a different address on it when it was held. these recent hearing notices were sent out over the holiday vacation. in total, these types of miss direction is to get away from response. we only heard about this now that the hearing was today. i put out a petition myself and just within the fast few days i got 25 signatures. maybe in a bigger scheme of things, it's a small number, but given it's 2 days, at, it's a pretty good response, i feel. in addition, my tenants as well, they did not receive any of these notices. some of them said this is the first time they have
6:25 am
heard from this. i strongly feel to move to continuance would give us the opportunity to get more awareness out, let everybody know this is happening and get a feel for the community to know whether or not they are for or against this. thank you. >> please silence any mobile devices, please. >> any other public comment on the continuance? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden? >> there is a motion and second on the floor. on the matter of continuance to february 20, 2014, commissioner borden? aye, moore aye, sugaya aye, wu, aye, fong in no. commissioners that passes 4-1 with commissioner fong voting no.
6:26 am
>> thank you. commissioners, that will place you under your discretionary review calendar. item 14 for case no. 20130740 d. item 14: 2013.0740d m. m. smith; 4155 558-63222st please not the commission continued to matter by a vote of 5-1. commissioner fong voted against. commissioner sugaya you were absent. you must have received -- reviewed the tape or audio. >> i was here in spirit. i review it on sfgtv. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon planning
6:27 am
commission dell vin washington. the property before you is at 238 eureka street. it's to construct an attic space. the vertical addition adds to the height of the building and the front of the elevation. on november 21st, the commission voted 5-1 to continue the case to january 16th to allow the project architect and provide information regarding concerns of commissioner moore. the information was included including dimension. in response to concerns about the roof at the building, the roof of the rear of the building a
6:28 am
revision has been submitted. the sponsor has provided this revised set of plans showing a 12 x 12 roof for the last depth. the action of the commission is to whether or not take the review. >> you already heard this. but because it is on your calendar, people are able to submit public comment. so. >> okay, i will bring up for public comment. public comment on this item? >> you have several speaker cards. phil, michael, and james frost. >> this is what we received on
6:29 am
saturday for i guess a revision. the part of up here shows very faintly what the proposed expansion will look like. here is from what i can tell this is what it is. but there weren't any real dimensions on the height. we are a group of nine identical
6:30 am
victorian homes on eureka street. there has never been a problem. being neighbors we have avoided problems by being neighborly. we are not opposed to expansion. we have expanded our home the same as mr. brown wishes to do and all done with the support of everyone. this is the first time we disagree with the expansion of a home, the first ever. what we don't want to see is here are the people, we had five people on each side opposed to it. here are a listing of their names. we don't want to see the character style of our neighborhood bastardized owl of control with multiple

21 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on